No errors; nuanced integration of theory
Minor slips; concepts clear and consistent
Core ideas mostly correct; 1–2 notable inaccuracies
Several inaccuracies; key terms partly misused
Concepts largely wrong or missing
Depth of analysis / application
Insightful, original synthesis; evidence of higher‑order thinking
Sound analysis with clear links between theory & evidence
Adequate explanations; some analytical gaps
Largely descriptive; limited application of theory
Purely descriptive or off‑topic
Use of evidence / examples
Multiple relevant, precisely cited studies or cases
At least one well‑selected, correctly cited example
Example relevant but superficially treated / vaguely cited
Example weak, generic, or tangential
No appropriate example
Logical flow; format exactly as instructed; concise
Generally clear; minor lapses in organisation or brevity
Understandable but occasionally rambling / formatting off
Disorganised; makes reading difficult
Disjointed or unreadable
Accurate terminology; professional style
Mostly precise; occasional jargon misuse
Acceptable but some ambiguity or verbosity
Frequent imprecision; hampers comprehension
Language prevents understanding
